Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (442763)	12/26/2008 4:18:04 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 1576465

The Seattle "no salt" policy dates from the mid 90's....before that salt was in use... J.

To: i-node who wrote (442763)	12/26/2008 4:29:45 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1576465

This probably will upset you a great deal but I am not going to hide if from you. The guy in the picture is a developer who builds shopping malls in the Seattle metro area. They found out a few years back that a stream near one of his malls had been diverted underground into a pipe. Environmentalists wanted the stream restored in order to even out water flows. So the stream has been brought back to the surface and now runs by an apt. complex and mall addition he has built. Isn't that disgusting? Below is the final project: Are you ready to give up your lunch yet?

To: i-node who wrote (442763)	12/26/2008 4:53:06 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576465

"I've asked you to provide one shred of evidence that this inconsequential quantity of salt would in any way damage the environment. And you haven't, or cannot, do it." You can't prove it can't. Despite that, you make the claim. "It is obvious that a few tons of salt dropped into Puget Sound every few years isn't going to have any effect. AT ALL." a) that is only true if it gets dumped in the whole Sound. That is certainly not the case. You keep talking about the whole Sound. However, the salt would have local effects. b) it would be more than a few tons. I don't have a clue as to how much salt would be used, but there was one of those local segments about a town where a local spice company donated 20 tons of garlic salt to the town because it was past its use by date. The city guy they talked to said they go through 100 tons of salt when there is a heavy snow fall. Now, what they deem as 'heavy' is likely to be more than they would in Seattle. But, there are also a lot more roads in Seattle.

To: i-node who wrote (442763)	12/27/2008 12:52:09 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1576465

It is obvious that a few tons of salt dropped into Puget Sound every few years isn't going to have any effect. AT ALL. Seattle has snow EVERY year usually 2-3 times per year. On the major arterial highways, sand and non toxic de-icer are used in lieu of salt. That would be a lot of salt. There is another costly factor to salt.....the rust out of cars. Routinely cars in Minnesota would rust out even after they have been treated with an anti rust protective coating. In Seattle we don't have cars rust out.